9. Groups, Interests, and Movements:

Groups, Interests, and Movements

  • Napoleon's Maxim: 'Ten persons who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent,' highlighting the impact of organized groups.

Preview

  • Transformation of Political Interaction: Organized groups and interests gained prominence in the 20th century, influencing political dynamics.
  • Group Politics: In the 1950s and 1960s, business interests, trade unions, and farm lobbies were considered key political actors, potentially displacing assemblies and parties.
  • Expansion of Interest Group Universe: From the 1960s, single-issue protest groups emerged, addressing issues like consumer protection, animal rights, sexual equality, and environmental protection.
  • Social Movements: These groups were often linked to broader social movements (e.g., women’s movement, civil rights movement, green movement) and adopted new activism styles, termed ‘new politics’.
  • Debate on Groups: There is ongoing debate about the nature and significance of groups, interests, and movements, especially regarding their impact on democracy.
  • Functions of Groups: Groups vary in function, acting as agents of citizen empowerment and components of government machinery.
  • Political Implications: Disagreement exists on whether groups distribute political power more widely or empower the already powerful, potentially subverting the public interest.
  • Influence of Groups: Questions arise about how groups exert influence and the factors enabling it.
  • New Social Movements: Praised for stimulating decentralized political engagement but criticized for discouraging participation in formal representative processes.

Key Issues

  • What are interest groups, and what different forms do they take?
  • What have been the major theories of group politics?
  • Do groups help or hinder democracy and effective government?
  • How do interest groups exert influence?
  • What determines the success or failure of interest groups?
  • Why have new social movements emerged, and what is their broader significance?

Group Politics

  • Linkages: Interest groups act as major connections between government and the governed, similar to political parties.
  • Origins: They emerged with representative government, articulating complex divisions in industrial society.
  • Distinction from Parties: While parties seek to win elections and build broad coalitions, interest groups advocate for specific aspirations or values.
  • Early Groups: Examples include the Abolition Society (1787) and the Anti-Corn Law League (1839).
  • Alexis de Tocqueville: Observed the power of association in the USA in the 1830s.
  • Nationalist Organizations: Young Italy (1831), founded by Giuseppe Mazzini, served as a model for other nationalist groups.
  • Women's Suffrage Movement: The Society for Women’s Rights (1866) spurred a global movement.
  • Late 19th Century: Powerful farming and business interests, along with a growing trade-union movement, were active in industrial societies.
  • Recent Origin: Most current interest groups emerged from the pressure and protest politics since the 1960s.
  • Decline of Parties: This period saw a decline in political parties and a growing emphasis on organized groups and social movements for mobilization and representation.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–59)
  • French politician, theorist, and historian.
  • Studied the US penal system after the July Revolution of 1830, resulting in Democracy in America (1835/40).
  • Critiqued US democracy’s equality but warned against the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
  • His political career ended with Louis Napoleon’s coup in 1849.
  • His writings reflect an ambiguous attitude toward political democracy, influencing liberal and conservative theorists and academic sociologists.
Key Concepts
  • Cleavage: A social division creating collective identity on both sides.
  • Association: A group formed by voluntary action, reflecting shared interests or concerns.

Types of Groups

  • Defining Groups: Defining and classifying groups is challenging due to their imprecise nature and diverse forms.
  • Groups vs. Interests: Consideration of whether groups require cohesion and organization or simply shared interests.
  • Selfish vs. Public Goals: Questioning whether interest groups pursue material interests or broader causes.
  • Relationship with Government: Determining if interest groups are always autonomous or can operate within government.
  • Terminology: Lack of agreed terminology among political scientists; ‘interest group’ has different connotations in the USA and UK.
Classification of Groups
  • Communal groups
  • Institutional groups
  • Associational groups
Communal Groups
  • Characteristics: Embedded in the social fabric, with membership based on birth rather than recruitment. Examples include families, tribes, castes, and ethnic groups.
  • Foundation: Based on shared heritage, traditional bonds, and loyalties, unlike conventional interest groups.
  • Role in Developing States: Play a major role in the politics of developing states, especially in Africa, where ethnic, tribal, and kinship ties are significant for interest articulation.
  • Influence in Industrial States: Continue to survive and exert influence in advanced industrial states, as seen in the resurgence of ethnic nationalism and the significance of Catholic groups in countries like Italy and Ireland.
Institutional Groups
  • Characteristics: Part of the machinery of government, exerting influence from within. They lack autonomy or independence.
  • Examples: Bureaucracies and the military, often with competing interests.
  • Authoritarian States: In authoritarian or totalitarian states, rivalry among institutional groups may become the principal form of interest articulation.
  • USSR: The Stalinist system was driven by entrenched bureaucratic and economic interests centered around heavy industry.
  • Hitler State: Concealed bureaucratic infighting as Nazi leaders built empires in a power struggle.
  • Significance in Democratic Regimes: Bureaucratic elites and vested interests in democratic systems can shape the policy process, constraining elected politicians.
  • Alliances: These groups often form alliances with conventional interest groups, like the ‘military-industrial complex’.
  • Bureaucracy and Military: The significance of these is discussed in Chapters 16 and 18.
Associational Groups
  • Characteristics: Formed by people pursuing shared, limited goals. Characterized by voluntary action and common interests.
  • Examples: Interest groups or pressure groups.
  • Blurring of Distinctions: The distinction between these and communal groups can be blurred when class loyalties are strong.
  • Importance in Developing States: Becoming increasingly important but usually seen as a feature of industrial societies.
  • Industrialization: Generates social differentiation and encourages self-seeking behavior.
  • Interaction with Government: When their primary function is to deal with government and other public bodies, such groups are usually called interest groups.
  • Variety of Forms: They are concerned with numerous issues and use tactics ranging from serving on public bodies to organizing civil disobedience.
  • Level of Operation: They can operate at a local, national, or international level.
  • Exclusions: Anti-constitutional and paramilitary groups like the Black Panthers and the IRA are excluded because they seek to restructure the political system fundamentally.
  • Structure: This is imposed on the interest group universe by attempting to identify different types of groups.
Concept: Interest Group
  • An organized association aiming to influence government policies or actions.
  • Differences from Political Parties:
    • Seek influence from outside rather than government power.
    • Have a narrow issue focus.
    • Seldom have broader programmatic or ideological features.
  • Distinction from Social Movements: Distinguished by a greater degree of formal organization.
Direct Action
  • Political action taken outside the constitutional and legal framework, ranging from passive resistance to terrorism.

Sectional and Promotional Groups

  • Sectional Groups: Also called protective or functional groups. They exist to advance or protect the material interests of their members.
    • Examples: Trade unions, business corporations, trade associations, and professional bodies.
    • Sectional Character: Derived from representing a section of society (workers, employers, consumers, etc.).
    • Functional Groups: Strictly speaking, only groups involved in the production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services.
    • USA Classification: Often classified as ‘private interest groups’ to emphasize their concern for the betterment of their members.
  • Promotional Groups: Sometimes termed cause or attitude groups. Set up to advance shared values, ideals, or principles.
    • Causes: Diverse, including ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ lobbies, civil liberties campaigns, and environmental protection.
    • USA Classification: Dubbed ‘public interest groups’ to emphasize promoting collective benefits.
    • International Politics: Often called non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
    • Definition: Aim to help groups other than their own members (e.g., Save the Whale).
  • Overlapping Features: Some organizations have both sectional and promotional aspects (e.g., NAACP).

Insider and Outsider Groups

  • Classification: Based on status relative to government and strategies adopted to exert pressure.
  • Insider Groups: Enjoy regular, privileged, and institutionalized access to government through routine consultation.
    • Overlap with Sectional: Often overlap with sectional classifications due to key economic interests exerting powerful sanctions.
    • Specialist Knowledge: Government may consult groups with specialist knowledge to formulate workable policy.
    • Limitations: Status conferred only on groups with objectives compatible with the government and a capacity to ensure members abide by decisions.
  • Outsider Groups: Not consulted by government or consulted irregularly and not usually at a senior level.
    • Weakness: Often an indication of weakness, forcing groups to ‘go public’ to exert indirect influence.
    • Inverse Relationship: There is an inverse relationship between the public profile of an interest group and its political influence.
    • Radical Protest Groups: Groups in fields like environmental protection and animal rights may have little choice about being outsiders.
    • Ideological Purity: Groups may choose to remain outsiders to preserve ideological purity, independence, and decentralized power structures.
Concept: Non-Governmental Organization
  • A private, non-commercial group seeking to achieve ends through non-violent means, active in international politics.
  • Operational NGOs: Design and implement projects related to development or relief.
  • Advocacy NGOs: Promote or defend a particular cause using expertise and knowledge.

Models of Group Politics

  • Specificity Debate: Some believe group politics are derived from system-specific factors, precluding general conclusions.
  • Broader Assumptions: Understanding group politics is often shaped by assumptions about the political process and the distribution of power.
  • Link to Theories of the State: These assumptions are linked to rival theories of the state.
  • Influential Models:
    • Pluralism
    • Corporatism
    • The New Right
Pluralist Model
  • Positive Image: Offers the most positive view of group politics, stressing the capacity of groups to defend individuals and promote democratic responsiveness.
  • Core Theme: Political power is fragmented and widely dispersed.
  • Decision-Making: Decisions are made through bargaining, ensuring diverse groups' interests are considered.
  • Arthur Bentley: Developed a pluralist ‘group theory’ in The Process of Government ([1908] 1948).
    • Dictum: ‘When the groups are adequately stated, everything is stated.’
  • David Truman: Continued this tradition with The Governmental Process (1951).
  • Behavioralism: Enthusiasm for groups was strengthened by the spread of behavioralism in the 1950s and early 1960s.
  • Systems Analysis: Portrayed interest groups as ‘gatekeepers’ filtering demands on government.
  • Community Power Studies: Analysts (Robert Dahl, Nelson Polsby) found empirical support for the assertion that no single elite dominates community decision-making.
  • Group Politics as Democracy: Seen as central to the democratic process.
  • Pluralist Democracy: Groups and organized interests had replaced political parties as the principal link between government and the governed.
  • Central Assumptions: All groups can organize and access government, leaders articulate members' interests, and political influence aligns with size and support.
  • Fragmented Power: Political power is fragmented to prevent any group from achieving dominance.
  • Countervailing Powers: Dynamic equilibrium emerges as competing groups organize to counter each other’s success (J. K. Galbraith).
  • Balance of Power: Group politics is characterized by this.
  • Criticism: Heavily criticized by elitists and Marxists.
  • Elitist Challenge: Elitists challenge the empirical claims of pluralism by suggesting that they only recognize one ‘face’ of power: the ability to influence decision-making.
    • Existence of a ‘Power Elite’: comprising the heads of business corporations, political leaders and military chiefs (Mills, 1956).
  • Marxist Emphasis: Marxists traditionally emphasize that political power is closely linked to the ownership of productive wealth, which suggests the existence of a capitalist ‘ruling class’.
  • Neo-Marxist View: Neo-Marxists like Ralph Miliband (2009) see ‘unequal competition’ between business and labor groups due to the former's economic resources and access to government.
  • Globalization: The rise of globalization has renewed such arguments, leading some to suggest that the increased mobility of capital and a free-trade international system has resulted in the ‘corporate takeover’ of government (Hertz, 2001).
  • Neopluralism: A more qualified form of pluralism emerged.
  • Charles Lindblom: Highlighted the privileged position that business groups enjoy in western polyarchies, while acknowledging that this seriously compromises the claim that such societies are democratic.
Robert Dahl (born 1915)
  • US political scientist, professor at Yale University.
  • Coined the term ‘polyarchy’ (rule by the many) to distinguish modern societies from classical democracy.
  • Developed a conventional pluralist position.
  • Developed a radicalized form of liberalism, ‘neopluralism’, that revealed an increasing concern with the power of major capitalist corporations.
Corporatist Model
  • Focus: Traces the implications of closer links between groups and the state in industrialized societies.
  • Definition: Emphasizes the privileged position certain groups have in relation to government, allowing them to influence policy formulation and implementation.
  • State-Specific vs. General Phenomenon: Some see corporatism as shaped by specific historical and political circumstances (e.g., Austria, Sweden, Germany, Japan).
  • Economic and Social Development: Others see it as stemming from economic and social development, manifesting in all advanced industrial states.
  • USA: Even the USA, portrayed as pluralist, invests regulatory agencies with quasi-legislative powers, fostering bonds between government and major interests.
  • Symbiotic Relationship: Corporatist tendencies reflect the symbiotic relationship between groups and government.
  • Insider Status: Groups seek it for access to policy formulation.
  • Government Needs: Government needs groups for knowledge and compliance.
  • Growing Need for Consultation: Continues to grow in differentiated societies, leading to institutional mechanisms.
  • Misgivings: The drift towards corporatism in advanced capitalist states, particularly pronounced in the 1960s and 1970s, provoked deep misgivings about the role and power of interest groups.
  • Reduced Access: Corporatism considerably cut down the number and range of groups that enjoyed access to government.
  • Privileged Groups: Economic or functional groups, leading to tripartitism that binds government to business and organized labor.
  • Exclusion: Consumer or promotional groups are often left out, with access restricted to ‘peak’ associations.
  • Hierarchical Order: In contrast to pluralism, corporatism portrays interest groups as hierarchically ordered and dominated by leaders not directly accountable to members.
  • Compliance: Government by consultation may conceal that corporatism acts as a mechanism of social control.
  • Threat to Democracy: Corporatism creates the spectre of decisions being made outside democratic control.
  • Government Overload: Government may be ‘captured’ by consulted groups, unable to resist demands.
  • Systematic Critique: Advanced most systematically by the New Right.
Concept: Corporatism
  • In its broadest sense, corporatism is a means of incorporating organized interests into the processes of government.
  • Authoritarian Corporatism (‘state’ corporatism): An ideology or economic form closely associated with Italian Fascism, it was characterized by the political intimidation of industry and the destruction of independent trade unions.
  • Liberal Corporatism (‘societal’ corporatism or ‘neocorporatism’): Refers to the tendency found in mature liberal democracies for organized interests to be granted privileged and institutional access to the process of policy formulation.
    *
Tripartitism
  • The construction of bodies that represent government, business and the unions, designed to institutionalize group consultation.
New Right Model
  • Antipathy: Derives from individualism at the heart of neoliberal economics; suspicion of social groups and collective bodies.
  • Preference: Preference for a market economy driven by self-reliance and entrepreneurship.
  • Concern: Expressed about the link between corporatism, escalating public spending, and over-government.
  • Public-Choice Theory: Influenced by public-choice theory, notably Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action (1974).
  • Public Goods: Olson argued that people join interest groups only to secure ‘public goods’: that is, goods that are to some extent indivisible in that individuals who do not contribute to their provision cannot be prevented from enjoying them.
  • Free Riders: This creates opportunities for individuals to become ‘free riders’, reaping benefits without incurring the costs of group membership.
  • Implications: There is no guarantee that a common interest will lead to organization; questions the pluralist assumption of equal political voice.
  • Small vs Large Groups: Olson also argued that group politics may often empower small groups at the expense of large ones.
  • Institutional Sclerosis: Olson’s The Rise and Decline of Nations (1984) critiqued interest group activity as a determinant of economic success or failure.
    • UK and Australia: Seen as suffering from ‘institutional sclerosis’ due to strong networks of interest groups.
  • Inverse Relationship: Message that there is an inverse relationship between strong and well-organized interest groups, on the one hand, and economic growth and national prosperity on the other had a powerful impact on New Right policies and priorities.
  • Backlash Against Corporatism: From the 1980s, spearheaded by Reagan (USA) and Thatcher (UK).
    • USA: Attempt to deregulate the economy by weakening regulatory agencies.
    • UK: Marginalization/abolition of corporatist bodies and assault on trade union power.
Concept: Public Choice
  • Public-choice theory is a subfield of rational-choice theory.
  • The ‘public’ character of public-choice theory stems from its concern with the provision of so-called ‘public goods’.
  • These are goods that are delivered by government rather than the market, because (as with clean air) their benefit cannot be withheld from individuals who choose not to contribute to their provision.
  • Public-choice theorists have generally highlighted the failures and defects of government in this respect, focusing on issues such as the policy impact of self-serving bureaucrats, and the consequences of interest-group politics.

Debating: Do Interest Groups Enhance Democracy?

Yes
  • Dispersing Power: Interest groups empower marginalized groups, giving a political voice to minorities often ignored by parties.
  • Political Education: Groups stimulate debate, creating a better-informed electorate by providing alternative information and technical expertise.
  • Boosting Participation: Group membership has increased while party membership declines, making organized interests principal agents of participation.
No
  • Entrenching Political Inequality: Interest groups empower the already powerful, such as corporations, creating a ‘power elite’.
  • Non-Legitimate Power: Interest group leaders are not popularly elected, making their influence democratically illegitimate.
  • Subverting Representative Democracy: Insider groups operate in secrecy, circumventing assemblies and controlling parties through campaign finance.

Patterns of Group Politics

  • Importance: Closely linked to economic and social development.
  • Agrarian vs. Industrial Societies: Agrarian societies are dominated by a few interests, while advanced industrial ones are complex.
  • Central Importance: Interest groups mediate between the state and fragmented society.
  • Roles and Significance: Vary by system, state, and time.
  • Principal Factors Determining Group Influence:
    • The political culture
    • The institutional structure
    • The nature of the party system
    • The nature and style of public policy.
The Political Culture
  • Crucial Role: Determines whether interest groups are viewed as legitimate or non-legitimate actors.
  • Willingness to Engage: Affects the willingness of people to form or join organized interests.
  • Monism: Regimes can suppress voluntary association to ensure state power (e.g., military regimes).
  • Underground Activity: Group activity is pushed underground and entangled with the party–state apparatus.
  • China: Despite formal monolithicism, market reforms have led to new social actors and state corporatism.
  • Pluralist Regimes: Permit, encourage, and require group politics; groups participate in policy formulation.
  • USA: High level of group activity due to constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly.
  • Japan: Close relationship between government and business is taken for granted.
  • Suspicion of Organized Interests: In some European states, such as France, groups are seen to undermine the ‘general will’ and challenge state unity.
Institutional Structure
  • Significance: Establishes points of access to the policy process.
  • Unitary Systems: Narrow the scope of group politics around the executive branch.
  • UK: Downgrading of corporatist bodies and marginalization of trade unions.
  • France: Interest-group activity focuses on direct consultation with the administration.
  • US Government: Fragmented and decentralized, reflecting bicameralism, separation of powers, federalism, and judicial review, making the system vulnerable to group pressures.
  • Veto Groups: Organized interests may act only as ‘veto groups’.
Relationship Between Political Parties and Interest Groups
  • Rivals: Parties aggregate interests for broad programs, while interest groups focus on narrower issues.
  • Influence: Interest groups seek to exert influence through parties, sometimes spawning parties.
  • Historical Links: Many socialist parties were created by trade unions (e.g., UK Labour Party).
  • Party System: Dominant-party systems narrow group politics, concentrating it on the governing party (e.g., Christian Democrats in Italy).
  • Multiparty Systems: Fertile ground for interest-group activity because they broaden the scope of access.
  • Legislative Influence: Influence is greatest in the USA, where parties are weak in organization and discipline.
Public Policy
  • Fluctuations: Group activity fluctuates with shifts in public policy, particularly state intervention in economic life.
  • Interventionism: Goes hand-in-hand with corporatism.
  • Integration: The integration of organized interests is taken further where social-democratic policies are pursued.
  • Swedish System: Interest groups are integral at every level, with close links between trade unions and the Social Democratic Labour Party.
  • Austrian 'Chamber System': Provides statutory representation for major interests.
  • German System: Key economic groups are closely involved in policymaking.

How Do Groups Exert Influence?

  • Broad Range of Tactics: Groups use a variety of tactics and strategies, tailored to the issue and policy area.
  • Nature of the Group: Crucial determinants of political strategy are the resources available.
  • Resources:
    • Public sympathy
    • Membership size
    • Financial strength
    • Links to parties or government
  • Business Groups: More likely to employ professional lobbyists.
  • Channels of Access:
    • The bureaucracy
    • The assembly
    • The courts
    • Political parties
    • The mass media
    • International organizations
The Bureaucracy
  • Key Institution: Interest group activity centers on bureaucracy as the key to policy formulation.
  • Limited Access: Access is mainly confined to major economic groups (corporations, unions, farming). Corporatist institutions are designed to facilitate group consultation.
  • Consultative Process: Informal yet institutionalized, through meetings and contacts rarely publicized.
  • Crucial Relationship: Between senior bureaucrats and business interests.
  • Advantages for Business:
    • Key role in the economy
    • Overlap of social backgrounds
    • Widespread belief that business interests coincide with the national interest.
  • 'Revolving Door': Bureaucrats move into private business after retirement.
  • Amakudari: Known as this in Japan, literally meaning ‘descent from heaven’.
  • Big Business' Control: Strengthened by the ease of relocating production and the advent of ‘new’ public management.
The Assembly
  • Lobbying: An important form of interest group activity, marked by the growth of professional lobbyists.
  • Dependence: Significance depends on the assembly’s role in policymaking and the strength of the party system.
  • US Congress: Interest group activity is intense due to the strength of Congress and decentralized party system.
  • PACs: Financial contributions by political action committees (PACs).
  • Policy Networks: Institutionalized contacts between legislators and affected groups.
  • Lobbying: Less significant in states with strong party discipline.
    *
The Courts
  • Limited Significance: In systems where courts rarely check executive actions.
  • Judicial Review: Where codified constitutions invest courts with the power of judicial review, the court system attracts far greater attention from interest groups.
  • Brown v Board of Education: Rejected segregation laws.
  • Roe v Wade: US pro-life lobby has targeted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, which established the constitutionality of abortion.
Political Parties
  • Close Links: Parties and groups are closely linked by historical, ideological, and institutional ties.
  • Campaign Finance: Groups influence parties through campaign finance.
  • Partisanship: Open partisanship could restrict the ability to recruit members from supporters of other parties.
    *
The Mass Media
  • Indirect Influence: Groups can employ tactics from petitions, protests, demonstrations to civil disobedience to influence government indirectly via the mass media (see p. 179) and public opinion campaigns.
  • Activist Politics: Peace campaigners, environmental lobbyists, animal rights groups practice styles of activist politics to attract media attention and stimulate public awareness and sympathy.
International Organizations
  • Globalization: Since the late 20th century, interest group activity has adjusted to globalization and international organizations.
  • Transnational Structures: Charities and environmental campaigners are well-suited due to their transnational structures.
  • Influence Exertion: Through lobbying by large corporations, national trade bodies and peak groups, and through the activities of a new range of EU peak groups such as the European Round Table of Industrialists and the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE).
  • Style of Lobbying: Depends on building long-term relationships based on trust and reciprocity.
Concept: Lobby
  • The term lobby is derived from the areas in parliaments or assemblies where the public may petition legislators, or politicians meet to discuss political business.
  • In modern usage, the term is both a verb and a noun.
  • The verb ‘to lobby’ means to make direct representations to a policy-maker, using argument or persuasion.
  • Broadly, ‘a lobby’ (noun) is equivalent to an interest group, in that both aim to influence public policy, as in the case of the farm lobby, the environmental lobby and the roads lobby.
  • Narrowly, following US practice, a lobbyist is a ‘professional persuader’: that is, a person hired to represent the arguments of interest group clients.
Concept: Iron Triangle
  • A closed, mutually supportive relationship in US politics between an executive agency, a special interest group and a legislative committee or subcommittee.
Concept: Civil Disobedience
  • Civil disobedience is law-breaking that is justified by reference to ‘higher’ religious, moral or political principles.
  • Civil disobedience is an overt and public act; it aims to break a law in order to ‘make a point’, not to get away with it. Indeed, its moral force is based largely on the willing acceptance of the penalties that follow from law-breaking.
  • This both emphasizes the conscientious or principled nature of the act and provides evidence of the depth of feeling or commitment that lies behind it. The moral character of civil disobedience is normally demonstrated by the strict avoidance of violence.

Social Movements

  • Revival of Interest: Due to the emergence of ‘new’ social movements since the 1960s.
  • Historical Roots: Can be traced back to the early nineteenth century.
  • Examples: Labour movement, national movements, Catholic movement.
  • Twentieth Century: Fascist and right-wing authoritarian groups were seen as movements.
New Social Movements
  • Contrast: Contemporary movements attract the young, better-educated, and affluent, unlike earlier movements of the oppressed.
  • Postmaterial Orientation: More concerned with ‘quality of life’ issues than social advancement.
  • Values: The women’s movement combines material concerns with values of gender equality.
  • Ideology: Linked to New Left ideas, challenging social goals and political styles.
  • Libertarian Aspirations: Embraces aspirations such as personal fulfillment and self-expression.
  • Membership Overlap: Significant among the women’s, environmental, animal rights, and peace movements.
  • Organizational Structures: Decentralization, participatory decision-making, and new forms of political activism.
  • 'New Politics': Turns away from established parties and processes in favor of innovation and theatrical protest politics.
  • Examples: The ‘Battle of Seattle’ in 1999, Occupy movement from 2011.
  • Disparate Groups: Involve groups with environmental, ethnic nationalist, anarchist and revolutionary socialist goals.
  • Communication: Internet and mobile phones are key.
  • Authors: Key anti-capitalist authors include Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein.
Mass Society Theory: Social movements reflect a ‘flight from freedom’ (Fromm, 1941), an attempt by alienated individuals to achieve security and identity through fanatical commitment to a cause and obedience to a (usually fascist) leader.
Concept: Social Movement
  • A particular form of collective behavior in which the motive to act springs largely from the attitudes and aspirations of members, typically acting within a loose organizational framework.
  • Being part of a social movement requires a level of commitment and political activism, rather than formal or card-carrying membership: above all, movements move.
  • A movement is different from spontaneous mass action (such as an uprising or rebellion), in that it implies a level of intended and planned action in pursuit of a recognized social goal.
Concept: New Left
  • The New Left comprises the thinkers and intellectual movements (prominent in the 1960s and early 1970s) that sought to revitalize socialist thought by developing a radical critique of advanced industrial society.
  • The New Left rejected both ‘old’ left alternatives: Soviet-style state socialism and de-radicalized western social democracy.
  • Common themes within the New Left include a fundamental rejection of conventional society (‘the system’) as oppressive, disillusionment with the role of the working class as the revolutionary agent, and a preference for decentralization and participatory democracy.
Events: On 17 September 2011, about 5,000 people – carrying banners, shouting slogans and banging drums – gathered in New York and started to make their way to Zuccotti Park, located in the Wall Street financial district. There they erected tents, set up kitchens and established peaceful barricades.
  • On one level, the Occupy movement is merely a further manifestation of anti-capitalist activism that dates back to the 1999 ‘Battle of Seattle’.
  • However, the upsurge in Occupy protests was particularly significant in at least two respects.
  • First, and most importantly, it was a response to the global financial crisis of 2007–09 and its aftermath, and thus constituted an attempt to challenge the values and redress the power imbalances that supposedly underpinned the crisis.

Impact of Social Movements

  • Difficult to Assess: Due to the broader nature of their goals and intangible cultural strategies.
  • Shift in Cultural Values: Profound political changes achieved through shifts in cultural values and moral attitudes.
  • Women’s Liberation Movement (WLM): Emerged in the 1960s mobilized by ‘second wave’ feminism.
  • Increasing Awareness: Its most significant achievement is an increasing general awareness of gender issues and the eroding of support for patriarchal attitudes and institutions.
  • Environmental Movement: Brought about similar politico-cultural shifts influenced by the likes of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Worldwide Fund for Nature, they have also exerted influence by broader anxieties.
  • 'Anti-Capitalist' Movement: Less successful at revising the support for free trade and economic deregulation.